loki jref

Sophie,

I'm a long time admirer of the good Doctor's work. :notworthy You are simply the latest to fall before the onslaught of the 5 choices (tm)

I'd "take part" in na more expansive way if I thought that in any way I could help you to understand the logical bind you find yourself in, but it's obvious that you still don't see the bars of the cell you've stumbled into.

What more can I add? The 5 choices (tm) are based in fact and logic. Your retorts are, at best, unsubstantiated speculations. I might speculate that the Tumourous Child (patent pending) finds herself transported in death to a wonderous island of chocolate, with extra lashing of whipped cream every Tuesday as the visible manifestation of the OmniGod's mea culpa. Even so, it doesn't change the unavoidable nature of the 5 choices (tm) in *this* world.

This seems a somewhat ambitious goal, given your current standing. Still, aiming high is a worthy trait...

Ah...so this is why you've not addressed his points! And I thought it was a lack of understanding! Oh, wait - you're confusing his appropriate use of "dismissal" with a failure to refute. Perhaps aiming at "expert" is aiming too high after all?

sophie

It is appropriate to speak in English on an english speaking forum. Your logical implication fails to deride my good sense.

Did'nt your college professor tell you that that logic needs firm understandings on which to premise. (gee they never told me that). On your graduation day did'nt they tell you that things can change when someone produces new evidence. Evidence man, evidence. Individuality is evidence. Call up you old professor and tell him you have seen the light. YEH.

sophie

loki jref Not a chance, I managed to dispose of the good Docter X's five points with clear rational reasoning. ipse didit or something like that.

The rest of your post is only for my amusement.

As I noted it is rather an immature argument to regard life as based within a vaccuum. If you fail to see that the good Docter X managed to construct his argument based on a fact (which I have not denied) within a vaccuum. The good Doctor X has failed to realise that intervention of omniGOD places individuality in limbo, Doctor X only dismissed it as ispe doneit. Docter X has subsequently failed to realise that suffering is not limited to his carefully choosen case, but substantial suffering can occur outside of physical pain. The good Docter X has failed to realise that death is a natural artifact of life and that there are many ways to death, some more painful than others.

In summing things up, what the good Docter X has done in constructing his argument is leaving the door wide open for dial-a-perfect experience as I mentioned earlier.

If you <insult deleted - liv> cannot swallow this line of argumentation, then consider yourselves deliberately defeated.

YEH. more redeye, yeh.

sakrilege

When??? Where???

Doctor X

Not one to commit argumentum ad captandum vulgus, but I am most gratified by the kind support from members of the Noble Readership.

Now to correct some misconceptions:

The problem with this is it represents another "blame the victim" rationalization. Sure, perchance screaming when set on fire represents "an inability to deal with present reality," specifically, the iron shackles and the maniacal laugh of Count Ludwig the Indestructable {You mean, "Shorty, Shorty, Greasy, Spot-Spot?"} NO!!! [No Blackaddder references!--Ed.]

Right . . . however, methinks one should not fault the child for failing to attain Zen mastery as such a tender age. . . .

. . . to suggest otherwise as in the quote proves most unseemly.

Another appeal to the "stiff upper lip" which, when you are paralysed, is rather difficult to effect, follows.

More specifically, unjust suffering of a severe extent and duration that does not at all compare with the examples given in the appeal to the "stiff upper lip."

Argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam, for I have quite considered the scope.

What follows is example that does not address the Case at the basis of the Five Choices [See the new series on TNT.--Ed.].

That one can consider other examples of suffering without the severity, extent and duration does not effect the original Case.

Apparently the <insult deleted - liv> wishes to compound her infamy by applying conclusions to posters that they did not make?

On the contrary, as indicated to herself and other posters, the choice of the all to frequent case had the benefit of avoiding irrelevant considerations--such as the Holocaust, where someone could try to argue no responsibility because it was perpetrated by men, blah . . . blah . . . blah.


Indeed, this is a very tough case that, unlike above, is real and not a fabrication.

As also stated, should someone drop a ball from the Languid Tower of Pisa and it come to rest 2.37 inches from the ground, someone would have to explain it. Telling stories about how feathers and hammers fall at the same speed on the Moon do not help.

Thus:

as Einstein quiped, no number of experiements would prove him right, but one could prove him wrong.

This one case--one of many--is the "one that proves."

Now, the <insult deleted - liv> attempts plead ignorance . . . to IMPLY that the case is not real.

Well, if she expended a small amount of the effort she has wasted trying to shore up her untenable position she could have simply searched the details of the condition.

That she has not remains her error, an error she cannot blame others for.

Now this is particularly pathetic . . . someone cue that really sad part with the violins from the William Tell Overture:

All together . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

Ipse Dixit and Wrong!

So, I gather we should just ignore the hovering ball in Italy and pretend that gravity works the way it always has. I suppose we should ignore the Michelson-Morely experiment and just "believe" light's speed should vary and the cosmic ether exists.

Indeed . . . throw out all of progress because one individual cannot deal with reality.

She may be happy to keep her head deeply inter'd in the sands on the banks of the River DeNile, but she cannot expect the ladies and gentleman of The Noble Readership to share such a fate.

No! [Cue Pomp and Circumstances.--Ed] For did our ancestors not first climb down from the trees to urinate against a large furry animal armed with claws and teeth that then prompty invented sashimi in a spirit of curiousity? And did not our remaining ancestors, seeing the results, instead chose to use holes dug in the ground!

Would we consign such efforts and advancement in the culinary sciences to the Latrine of History {Compton?} because we FEAR the world?

No sir!

Shall we give up the advance of knowledge and understanding because of this fear?!

The choice, then, is clear . . . confront reality and try to learn by it, or wallow in delusions such as:

I cannot help the willfully ignorant. I cannot make a person who keeps her eyelids closed, stapled, bent, folded, and mutilated see.

I can try to prevent such nonsense from spreading, however.

I have to think of the children. . . .

--J.D.

loki jref

Sophie,

My pardon - I must have missed it. Allow me a few moments to review this thread ... hmmm ... looking, looking, ... perhaps ... nope, sorry, you didn't!

And thusly, OmniGod is irrelevant.

The Doctor (god bless him and all who sail in him) is merely attempting to place OmniGod within the Tumourous Child's (patent pending) worldview. For this child which of the 5 choices (tm) best serves as her view of the OmniGod?

Ah, no. This is not a quest for a perfect world, or a perfect OmniGod. It's resolving the facts of this world, within the context of this world.

sophie

Docter X : It proves nothing, it is only a base for supposition.

You seem to parallel supposition with proof. The case is real, this much I will grant you, that much for picking a case of this form of prolonged suffering and pain.

What this proves rather than backing your 5 assumptions is that you administer the case within a vaccuum. You dismiss individuality as not applicable to your suppositions. You dismiss death as inevitable leaving you in a vaccuum outside of life. You dismiss reasons for the existence of pain.

If you were to consider your premises in any depth, the only ground you have to stand on is the sweet child was unable to live an average life on Earth. This is the final implication of you leaving that vaccuum you have holed up in and placing your feet firmly on the ground.

ipse it. yah.

Here is the envelope of your basic argument.
birth implies death.
(sickness or entropy) implies death.
(prolonged sickness) implies possible evil omniGOD.

not(possible evil omniGOD) implies dial-a-perfect experience.

Can't you see the severity of your claims based on this true case? It is a fantasy argument. yah.

sophie

loki jref : Exactly. Just as I noted, This is the only rational choice Docter X has in besides noting omniGOD does not exist.

Thank you, your own words are relevant to making my point. The world view presented by Docter X is a bit far fetched based on reality, it is valid based on a vaccuum and abstract reality. It's a bit like expecting consciousness to function correctly if every bit of brain matter was replaced by a silicon counterpart. That does not work because silicon does no reporting of its own states like organic matter does. In this same sense the 5 choices cannot function as a world view because they are based on vacuuming the reality out of the world.

winstonjen

The only reason for pain, outside of masochism or sadism, is to teach us how to avoid such pain in the future. QED. "I have demonstrated what I set out to prove."

All that's left is to finish it off with "YahWEH."

What's wrong with a perfect experience? By definition, NOTHING!

Doctor X

I will let the Noble Readership guess the fallacy there.

It is the same here:

Actually, it occurs in reality, in the real world.

Quod erat demonstrandum times . . . someone remind me. . . .

We then have complaints that do not address the argument. It is, indeed, a form of argumentum ad vertatem obfuscandam. However, to demonstrate:

Not at all. The child remains an individual. Individuality remains irrelevant to the argument.

Again, incorrect. As noted above, if die the child must--"future Celine Dion, et cetera--then she could have passed this Mortal Coil in a far less extreme fashion.

Mengele, after all, passed away rather easily from a stroke whilst swimming.

Again, I particularly dislike Lies and Hypocrisy. On the contrary, I directed the attention of this individual to the correct physiology of pain. That she chose to ignore it remains her error.

Name that fallacy. . . .

Seems rather solid ground . . . give me a lever and I will move the Earth. . . .

Funny how the individual cannot shake it.

Now yet another attempt to misrepresent the argument out of Fear of its implications:

Since I have stated and restated the basic argument and it does not at all resemble this gibberish, I am sure The Noble Readership may recognize this for the dodge it is.

If someone wishes to make arguments for me, I wish they would at least have the decency to do so coherently. On the contrary, the argument is detailed on the second page. That the now [<insult deleted - liv> cannot deal with it remains her error.

Now:

Now the <insult deleted - liv> may wish to consider Irrelevant the choice of the Five Choices [See the director's cut on DVD.--Ed.], but that remains a separate argument--trying to prove one choice better than the other. Calling her choice "rational" is merely another ipse dixit of course, for she has not removed the other choices.

Now given this:

I am afraid the child did not find her plight at all "far fetched." On the contrary, she found it all too real--as do other victims of this condition.

Notice the inability to deal with the argument. She vacillates between admiting the case is real to calling it "far fetched." I never implied that the case and its implications are not "disturbing" but part of maturity is dealing with reality in all of its wonder and disturbing aspects.

We are left with the individual trying to argue that since this is an isolated incident we can ignore its implications--much like just never visiting the ball hovering over the gound in Pisa. . . .

However, thousands do not an "isolated incident" make.

--J.D.